A Few more FB Post

http://bit.ly/ZPh9ZM







What a Screwball!

Congress May Exclude Itself from ObamaCare

Let’s recap for a moment. In 2010, Congress passed ObamaCare, a law that imposes a litany of mandates, including a requirement on every American to purchase health insurance coverage, and some 20,000 pages of regulations. Despite promises to the contrary, Americans are now seeing their premiums go up and many are facing either changes to their coverage or losing it entirely; as was predicted by opponents of ObamaCare before it was ever passed.

But now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) working on a deal that would exempt themselves, other members of Congress and their staffers from the law:

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

A source close to the talks says: “Everyone has to hold hands on this and jump, or nothing is going to get done.”

Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key Obamacare component, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office.

If ObamaCare is so great, as President Obama’s apologists endlessly claim, why are they trying to exempt themselves from it? What Reid and Boehner are essentially saying to the American people is “ObamaCare for thee, but not for me.” Unbelievable and incredibly hypocritical.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13458-congress-may-exclude-itself-from-obamacare

Harry Reid Compares Tea Party to “Anarchists”

Harry Reid Sucks!   He is a Liberal Idiot!

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took a shot at the Tea Party movement while discussing the sequester and the Simpson-Bowles fiscal reform plan with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).

Coburn, who is serving his last term in the Senate, objected to S. 788, which wouldsuspend the sequester for the current fiscal year. The sequester — a plan that merely cuts the rate of spending increases, is being blamed for flight delays due to FAA furloughs of air traffic controllers — a move with political motivations behind it.

“What is happening in the Senate is phenomenal, and I want the American people to see this, Coburn explained. “The Federal Government is 89 percent bigger than it was 10 years ago. We just heard the majority leader say flexibility can’t work because we are already dealing with the same amount of money — 89 percent more than we were 10 years ago.”

“I didn’t vote for the Budget Control Act. I think sequester is a stupid way to cut spending. But I want us to understand exactly what is going on,” Coburn continued. “This is a contrived situation because no effort — zero effort — by the FAA or the Department of Transportation has been made to have any flexibility in terms of how they spend their money. They have made no request for a reprogramming of funds within the FAA. They have over $500 million unobligated sitting in balances that aren’t obligated, so none of this had to happen. This has been a created situation.”

Reid responded with revisionist history, bogus numbers, and a slam against both Coburn and the Tea Party movement.

“We have a situation where this country has been driven by the Tea Party for the last number of years,” Reid said in response to Coburn. “When I was in school, I studied government and I learned about the anarchists. Now, they were different than the Tea Party because they were violent. But they were anarchists because they did not believe in government in any level and they acknowledged it. The Tea Party kind of hides that.”

“They don’t say ‘we’re against government’; that’s what it all amounts to,” he continued. “They’re not doing physically destructive things to buildings and people, directly; but they are doing everything they can to throw a monkey wrench into any form of government — whether it’s local, whether it’s state, or federal government. That’s what it’s all about.”

Reid then turned his sights on Coburn, claiming that he is “helping” the Tea Party. “[A]nything they can do to throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of government, they’re happy doing that,” Reid claimed. “And I’m sorry to say my friend from Oklahoma is helping them — maybe not directly but indirectly — and that is wrong.”

Perhaps even more peculiar than his baseless attack against the Tea Party movement, Reid went onto claim that “[g]overnment is not inherently bad,” but rather it’s “inherently good,” in his mind.

“Government is inherently good.” Reid added. “That’s why we have a Constitution; that’s what direct the activities that this government is based upon.”

There aren’t many in the Tea Party, if any at all, who will say that they don’t believe in government. They do believe in a constitutionally limited government. The arguments presented by the Tea Party or freedom movement are that government has grown far too large after years expanding entitlements, requiring Americans to purchase a product, even if they don’t want it — which is exactly what ObamaCare does.

Perhaps they’re also upset about the $1+ trillion budget deficits, nearly $17 trillion national debt, an unconstitutional foreign policy, and spying techniques that run roughshod over the Fourth Amendment. With all of that in mind, it’s incredibly hard to say that our government is being run in a manner that’s consistent with the principles of the Constitution, which was once the basis of good government.

Reid and others in Congress, as well as many of those before them, have ignored the Constitution on nearly every issue that has been brought to the floor. It’s quite possible that deconstruction of constitutional principles is one of the few consistent bipartisan efforts in Washington.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13441-harry-reid-compares-tea-party-to-anarchists

Benghazigate: Did Hillary Clinton Commit Perjury Twice?

A new congressional report indicates former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have lied under oath at least twice during her Benghazi testimony. On September 11, 2012 four Americans including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens were killed in a terrorist attack by militants linked to al-Qaida and Ansar al-Sharia. Militants stormed the U.S. consulate building in Benghazi, Libya with rockets and machine guns; Stevens and four other Americans died.

Stevens became the first U.S. Ambassador since 1988 to die in office. And CIA employees and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were both killed despite the fact that the U.S. military had almost seven hours to send them back-up assistance.

Hillary Hyperbole #1: She Didn’t See or Approve Cables Requesting Support In Libya

Obama’s White House and Clinton’s State Department knew of the danger to Stevens for months and did nothing about it. On August 16, Stevens sent a cable notifying Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department of an anticipated “coordinated attack” that the consulate would not be able to manage without backup support. Clinton’s State Department did not take proactive measures to respond.

On the day of the attack, reports indicate that the CIA initially denied requests from its own personnel for backup assistance at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and later at the CIA annex or safe house. When support finally arrived, it was too late.

This January, Clinton testified that: “I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention…” and “I didn’t see those requests. They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them.”

But a new congressional report shows that Clinton did indeed sign an April, 2012 State Department cable acknowledging formal requests for help. So, she DID know of various cables requesting assistance in Libya. Reporter @SharylAtkisson tweeted that while Clinton knew of these requests for aid, she “ordered the withdrawal of elements to proceed as planned.” Worse yet, the report indicates that Obama’s White House and State Department literally changed their talking points in order to cover for Clinton. Specifically: “…. to remove references to likely participation of Islamic extremists in attacks, references to threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda…,” according to the report.

Hillary Hyperbole #2 – She ‘Did Not Know’ About Gun Trafficking That Armed al-Qaida

New reports indicate that one of the primary purposes of the CIA annex in Benghazi was to arm Syrian rebels and Clinton was the ‘mastermind’ behind this gun-trafficking scheme to arm the Syrian rebels. The arms apparently traveled from Libya to Turkey and from there to Syria. The danger in arming the Syrian rebels, which according to The New York Times appears to be Clinton’s idea, is that many of these rebels include members of al-Qaida and other violent extremists. Clinton’s gun trafficking scheme likely played a role in the 9/11 attack on the Libya consulate, as the rebels were linked to al-Qaida.

During testimony, Sen. Rand Paul explicitly asked Clinton about the gun trafficking program and whether she knew about it. She said: “I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.”

WND reports that the gun-tracking “escalate[d] before the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi” and that Sen. Lindsay Graham has testified that Stevens’ role was to “keep weapons caches from falling into the hands of the enemies.”

So Clinton most likely launched the gun program, expected Stevens to oversee it and then her weapons likely landed in the hands of al-Qaida affiliates who killed Stevens and three other Americans. And she is denying any knowledge of this program.

Well, what do you expect? Like husband, like wife. He schemes about sex. She bluffs about bloodshed.

Note...sent to me with no link

Rep. Tom Cotton: “Five Jihadists Have Reached Their Targets In The United States Under Barack Obama.”

The Left reviled George Bush for getting us into two wars against countries that, as far as the Left was concerned, were guilty of only two things: practicing “the religion of peace” and, in Iraq’s case, having oil. No one on the Left would acknowledge that, during Bush’s president, once the dust settled on 9/11, there were no further terrorist attacks on American soil – until last Monday’s attack, which even they couldn’t explain away as a lone wolf attack unrelated to Islamic jihad.

Last Monday’s Boston Bombing is forcing Americans of all political stripes to acknowledge the truth that the Left dares not speak: Obama’s policies have not kept us safe from Islamic terrorism. Like the little boy in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” Rep. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) took to the House floor and said what every honest person must acknowledge – under Obama, the terrorists are once again invading American shores.

Nor is that invasion limited to the Boston bombings. Monday’s terrorist attack should force reasonable people to acknowledge that the mainstream media has been lying to the public when it has pretended that past mass murders and attempted mass murders attempts (and attempted attacks) carried out by Muslims against Americans were isolated events or, worse, that the attacks were a reasonable revenge for America’s conduct. Taken together, all of them show a body of religious Islamists in active war against the American people:

I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies and programs. Counterterrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five Jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state—the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask “why is the Obama administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States.

Incidentally, Cotton left out a sixth attempted jihadist attack: the Portland Christmas bomber who planned to blow up families gathering in the hundreds around the Portland Christmas tree. Mohamed Osman Mohamud was stopped only because an undercover operation caught on in time. Mohamud was arrested as he headed out to plant the fortunately fake bombs in his possession. His failure may have been part ofthe Tsarvaevs’ decision to use homemade bombs, rather than to rely on outside suppliers.

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/04/13211-rep-cotton-five-jihadists-have-reached-their-targets-in-the-united-states-under-barack-obama/

Some Good Facebook Post

These Idiots are trying to exempt themselves from the law??? Why?? To good for it. or its not good??

Krauthammer: "The Lengths To Which Obama Will Go To Avoid Telling Us About The Enemy Is Becoming Comical"

Krauthammer: "The Lengths To Which Obama Will Go To Avoid Telling Us About The Enemy Is Becoming Comical"

RELATED VIDEOS | expand

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I say I don't know what he is thinking, but I sure know what he is saying and doing. The lengths to which he will go to avoid telling us the truth about the enemy is becoming comical, it's certainly embarrassing. For example, he will never -- forget about the word jihadist, he'll never use that. But he refuses to use the word Islamist which is used throughout the Muslim world. It's used by journalists, authors, on the street, in the parliament, everywhere, in Egypt, it's used in Lebanon, it's used everywhere by Muslims.

And yet, Obama won't touch it because he refuses to use any words that might imply a connection between radical Islam and terrorism, which as anybody who is over the age of 9 knows is the single greatest cause of terror in the world today. I'll give you one example, which is completely overlooked by everyone. It was a rather trivial one.

When he was in Israel, he gave a speech in Jerusalem. And in the middle of the speech, he talked about the rise of the Islamist parties in Egypt and elsewhere -- the [Muslim] Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, etc. And what was the phrase he used? 'We have to be concerned about the rise of nonsecular parties.' What a weird word to use. The word is religious parties. The word is Islamist parties. Yet, even in this trivial throw away line, in a speech in Jerusalem, he refuses to use the obvious word.

[…]

I think it’s more than PR. Because, if you want to lead a nation in a fight it takes a long time. The drone attacks are happening off-screen. Below the radar. It doesn’t affect us in our lives. Yes, I commend him on that. Yes, it is happening. But he tries to keep all of this at bay, as if it’s not happening, as if it’s all secret. We don’t hear about it, and every once in a while you get an attack like the one in Boston and people say, what’s going on? I thought Obama said the tide of war was receding. I thought, we dn’t even use the phrase War on Terror. I thought the guy who killed 13 Americans in the Fort Hood shooting, who jumped up ona table and yelled allahu ackbar, which is the signature of the jihad, is still today called by this administration workplace violence. As if the guy went postal.

O’REILLY: It’s absurd.

KRAUTHAMMER: It’s absurd and I think it undermines the strength of America.

O’REILLY: Do you ever think we’ll know why? Do you ever think we’ll know why the president is doing this, ever?

KRAUTHAMMER: I’m not sure. We can all speculate. I don’t think he’ll even admit it. He’ll say I want to protect minorities.

O’REILLY: HE hasn’t used the word muslim terrorism in this whole thing.

KRAUTHAMMER: He’s afraid if he uses the word it’s going to stigmatize a billion people on earth, which is ridiculous. (O'Reilly Factor, April 23, 2013)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/23/krauthammer_the_lengths_to_which_obama_will_go_to_avoid_telling_us_about_the_enemy_is_becoming_comical.html#.UXh6DGp_nZQ.facebook